Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - CNN

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
archives.cnn.com...


Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.
Attack on America


Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

Since Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States, Bush has repeatedly threatened to strike out against terrorism and any nation that supports or harbors its disciples.

Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi-born exile, has lived in Afghanistan for several years. U.S. officials blame him for earlier strikes on U.S. targets, including last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent.

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places."

Immediately after the attacks that demolished the World Trade Center's landmark twin towers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, officials of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said they doubted bin Laden could have been involved in carrying out the actions.

The Taliban -- the fundamentalist Islamic militia that seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 -- denied his ties to terrorism and said they have taken away all his means of communication with the outside world.

The repressive Taliban regime has received almost universal condemnation, particularly for their harsh treatment of women. Only three countries, including Pakistan, recognize them as the country's rightful government.

A high-level Pakistani delegation was set to travel to Afghanistan on Monday to urge Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to hand over bin Laden, CNN learned Sunday.

The Taliban, which controls more than 90 percent of the country, has threatened any neighboring country that allows its soil to be used to help the United States stage an attack on Afghanistan.




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
UM.... whats the point of this post????



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   


UM.... whats the point of this post????



Whats the point? What was the point of Afghanistan and Iraq?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Just another move by the "United States" team, in the game of "Risk".



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



UM.... whats the point of this post????



Whats the point? What was the point of Afghanistan and Iraq?


get oil, hey what can i tell ya, if we don't have oil, our country won't work. US is acting on it's own interest, like any other country out there.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   


get oil, hey what can i tell ya, if we don't have oil, our country won't work. US is acting on it's own interest, like any other country out there.


Sorry. My mistake. I forgot it was ok to invade people for the sake of your own countries economic interests.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Thank you for bringing this post up. It was a little tidbit that got lost in the chaos after 9/11, I remembered specifically that Bin laden had denied his involvement in the attacks, something that had he really done it, hed be bragging and boasting and scoring cool points with the rest of his friends. To deny the attacks if he did them, would lose him alot of respect in terrorist circles.

Just another curious piece of the 9/11 mystery, and anothert gnat to pick at the offical spin on what happened.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Osama bin Laden is such an honorable man, we really should take his word for it. And of course all of those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were not terrorist camps at all. They were being used to train Avon salesmen.

We invaded Afghanistan for all of the wealth and riches there! There's oil coming out of every hole in the ground. LOL

So lets ignore the videotape of bin Laden bragging about orchestrating the attacks, and the many statements since reiterating his roll in the attacks. Let's just focus on an alleged statement made by him and released to Al Jazeera a week after the attacks. How do we even know he made that statement? According to the same article, the Taliban has him cut off from the outside world.

If you knew anything about bin Laden's personality then you would know he is not one to brag anyway.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
This is an extremely old report, right after 9/11. He has since taken full responsibility for the attacks.

It's been al-Qaeda's modus operandi to not take immediate credit for attacks, so the initial denials wouldn't be unusual.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Osama bin Laden is such an honorable man, we really should take his word for it. And of course all of those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were not terrorist camps at all. They were being used to train Avon salesmen.

We invaded Afghanistan for all of the wealth and riches there! There's oil coming out of every hole in the ground. LOL



Um, how about the biggest heroine/ opium trade spot in the world for the last couple centuries?!



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   


Um, how about the biggest heroine/ opium trade spot in the world for the last couple centuries?!



Ohhh so now not only do we go to war for oil, but we go to war for opium???

How about the fact that this country harbored and refused to turn over the world's most wanted terrorist? The very man who financed and orchestrated an attack on our nation that killed over 3,000 people and caused us billions and billions in damages. Or is this not a good enough reason for you?

People like you will never be satisfied with any justification that's used to go to war.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
rasputin, dj
I think you're talking about the blurry, dark video of a man who looked nothing like UBL, claiming all sorts of ridiculous things and speaking in a manner totally unlike UBL. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is at least one UBL tape that stinks to high heaven, it just screams fake.

rasputin
By your logic, we shouldn't trust a lot of people who hold positions of power currently. I like your logic, actually, I just choose to apply it more evenly, like good mustard, instead of spottily, like yucky canapes.
Now, I somewhat agree that we didn't invade Afghanistan for the oil - we invaded for the rights to build a pipeline, to increase opium production to fatten the black budget, and to hunt down and murder a rogue agent (UBL). One of those efforts has gone off without a hitch. The other two are up in the air, and suffering from sabotage.


Originally posted by Rasputin13
People like you will never be satisfied with any justification that's used to go to war.


What's that about? People on the other side have reasonable questions that have not been answered. We're trying to enlarge the middle ground, by sharing information. We can have neutral ground here, but not if this persists. First of all it stinks of hopelessly rigid beliefs, and that's unhealthy. Second of all, it stereotypes unfairly. All the proof I've seen fails to impress. Have you seen different proof than I have? If not then we're coming to different conclusions based on the same data, and that means one or both of us has an agenda nudging logic out of the way. I think my bill of health is clear from agenda infections ( I have very little/nothing to gain from what goes on in the world, short of humanitarian disasters impinging on my right to life, and that's what's drawing nearer by the day if we can't find a way to work together). What do you think?

What do you say to Global Hawk? What do you say to mising surveilance footage? What do you say to hijackers alive and well? What do you say to..nevermind..there's easily a dozen other items on this list, but first I want to know if you're willing to play the game "let's share information" instead of "let's advance our agenda" so I don't waste more of my time attempting to salvage what cannot be saved.

Justmytype
Is it your opinion that this is such old news, and so well known to all, that it need not be rehashed? I think some replies to this thread proved otherwise. Is it your opinion that it's responsible foreign policy to seize natural resources through use of force? Or is it your opinion that they're not as important or as 'human' as Americans and so don't deserve the same rights? I'm not assuming anything, I want to hear your reasoning.

ulshadow
Old ways aren't working, they never have. We need new ways. We need cooperation and mutual respect for anyone wanting to see the future. If fundamentalists on both sides can't imagine playing that game, then they won't be invited to do so. Simple.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 3-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - CNN

CNN is a flunky news channel that has lost its way and place in the news media world. It makes an assertion and yet, ironically, other reputable news sources indicate to the contrary, huh?

Please, allow me:
Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility

Oh, then we get into whether the 2001 video was authentic or not, correct?
How about the October 2004 video where he admits he was responsible for 9/11? Going to question the authenticity of that? I thought so. Hence the 'conspiracy', eh?
Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech



Nevertheless, bin Laden has publicly praised the 9/11 attacks in several instances and has taken credit for being their "inspiration." It is clear in many of his public statements that he views himself as an active participant in the attacks, whether or not he deserves the credit the West gives him as their "mastermind." A good example is this passage from his October 2001 interview with Al-Jazeera:

As for the World Trade Center, the ones who were attacked and who died in it were a financial power. It wasn't a children's school! And it wasn't a residence. And the general consensus is that most of the people who were in there were men that backed the biggest financial force in the world that spreads worldwide mischief [ta`ithu fil ardi fasaadaa]. And those individuals should stand for Allah, and to re-think and re-do their calculations. We treat others like they treat us. Those who kill our women and our innocent, we kill their women and innocent, until they stop from doing so.[6] (www.religioscope.com...)
In October of 2004, a videotape was released of Bin Laden directly admitting that he had ordered the September 11 attacks:

...as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
[7] (english.aljazeera.net...)

Osama Bin Laden

Bottom line, you either believe he was behind it or not.






seekerof



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13




The very man who financed and orchestrated an attack on our nation that killed over 3,000 people and caused us billions and billions in damages. Or is this not a good enough reason for you?

Last I checked, which I just did, it wasn't over 3,000 people.... almost 3,000 people is more like it. 4 away to be precise. I would have also accepted 3,000 people but over is a mistatement.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13


People like you will never be satisfied with any justification that's used to go to war.


Sounds like a good type of person to know then.

Anyway I liked this post and it wouldn't surprise me if this Bin Laden guy was some kind of patsy for the 9/11 thing. I always keep the Reichstag burning in mind.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Bottom line, you either believe he was behind it or not.


It's statements like this one that reaffirm my belief that this whole event was scripted. Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty much spot on accurate, but it goes to show how resilient this situation/event/crime is against prying eyes and minds. People who are strongly motivated in either direction have their minds made up, practically cast and fire-hardened. Those in the middle seeking answers are frustrated and confounded at every turn by what amounts to equal bodies of evidence.

Don't get me wrong, please, I'm not attacking your position Seekerof, and I'm not attacking your evidence, but I am curious as to how this was so perfectly suited to deceive those in the extremes, why 9/11 was SO successful at widening said extremes, and why more hasn't been done in terms of analysis of the evidence.

Is it possible the CIA has information regarding this case that would vindicate one side or the other, but they've been unable to release it because of political fallout?

The latest(?) issue of EyeSpy has an article about new evidence that the passengers on flight 93 never entered the cockpit. I don't have a subscription, but I imagine SOMEONE on ATS must have, so if anyone reads that article, please do inform us as to the contents.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuTroll

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Osama bin Laden is such an honorable man, we really should take his word for it. And of course all of those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were not terrorist camps at all. They were being used to train Avon salesmen.

We invaded Afghanistan for all of the wealth and riches there! There's oil coming out of every hole in the ground. LOL



Um, how about the biggest heroine/ opium trade spot in the world for the last couple centuries?!


That was until the Taliban took over and wouldn't allow it. Somebody was no longer profiting from the heroine trade due to the Taliban. So how do you take out the Taliban? Get the US to do it. How do you get the US to go to war with the Taliban? Take out the twin towers Al Qaeda style. Who stood to benefit the most from USA taking out the Taliban? Whoevers profits were being hurt the most from the loss of the flow of opium/heroine from Afghanistan, thats who.
Well, thats MY guess, anyway.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by tjack]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
tjack
That's precisely why there's some validity to the connection between Russia/France/ as perpetrators. The organized crime element of both countries historically has made almost all their money off of this business.

There's also some connection to CIA black budget drug running made famous in the 80's, for the same reasons. Though, I believe most the heroin from Afghanistan makes it way to France for processing before being shipped anywhere.

Maybe that's changed since the US invaded, I don't know.

It certainly would explain the France/America acrimony during and after 9/11. America can't just come right out and say it, even if they know it, because France is on the Security Council, and they have a lot of international clout. All France would have to do would be to sow the seeds of conspiracy with information like "9/11 The Big Lie" to give themselves plausible deniability and essentially immunity from prosecution in the court of public opinion.

It's a complicated situation, 9/11, I just wish everyone would drop the pitchforks and torches long enough to figure out what exactly happened.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
~snip
Though, I believe most the heroin from Afghanistan makes it way to France for processing before being shipped anywhere.

Maybe that's changed since the US invaded, I don't know.

It certainly would explain the France/America acrimony during and after 9/11. America can't just come right out and say it, even if they know it, because France is on the Security Council, ...~snip


I was wondering about the processing part, yes if France is the middleman between poppies and smack that does explain a lot. I bet if one follows this particular money trail to the top, one will find a lot of answers.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
France? Traditionally, opium travels from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Iran & Turkey. Conversion to heroine or morphine base occurs in these places. France is a consumer--but not a point of entry for raw goods. By the time it gets to France, it has already been processed and cut.

I think that there is something to the opium angle--Afghan opium production has more than doubled since the poppy fields were replanted/the U.S. invasion. We will have to see if efforts this spring to eradicate the fields are serious or just a token effort. I think that taking the $80 billion or so in annual cash flow generated by the Afghan poppy crop out of the global economy would have some noticeable effects--and it wouldn't just be drug dealers having to hock their bling-bling.

For some interesting essays on the drug trade in Afghanistan/the CIA connections, see
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.fromthewilderness.com...

Also, I found this theory about how Sibel Edmonds may have stumbled on to the CIA/Iran-Contra/drug connection intriguing...
www.dailykos.com...





new topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join